UFO filmed at Area 51-Finally conclusive video evidence

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: playswithmachines

a reply to: draknoir2



I have also blind-tested Deuem's process, it was 100% effective.

We are planning to run some more blind tests on different objects to build up a solid base to compare UFO photo's with.

It's called research dudes.

Does it help to be blind when testing this "process"?

LOL, You're quick today. I like that.

I often do testing on prints that I get with no description. Or 2 prints that look exactly the same and need to figure out what is going on within the prints. Testing in the Blind, sort of speak, It can be a fun project to try. Many things can hide in a print right in plain sight. Things the human eye can not see very well. They get blended away within the gradients.

originally posted by: gavron

originally posted by: Deuem It is also impossible to judge this video just by watching it. The caft is too far away for a clear shot that the eyes can see. One needs to do a lot of work on it first.

It's the "lot of work on it" that's the issue. You can only manipulate an image from 1991 technology level so much. And some of us do have access to some higher end state of the art programs...so we know how it works.

Yes I agree that there are limits to the old tech. It does make it more difficult to process. I guess what I look for is either in the frame or it is not. It does not have that much to do with the age of the print for myself, it's more the DPI of the frame to begin with. The old garbage in, garbage out.

If one were to film 3 stick matches, one new, one lit and one just burt out, I would expect 3 different energy levels. How a camera picks up the 3 different energy levels is what I go after. The levels of energy coming from the 3 match heads will be different. Normal film will blend the lit match to show just the flame. Now if you can break down the flame into what it will look like as an energy wave(s) is what I attemp to do. I say attempt because unless one trully agrees it is open to debate. When you then take this style of thought to other things, one builds up a data base of known energy fields.

Take this to every known emiting light source you can find and the data base gets quite large. Then start to compare new findings. It is like a huge puzzle missing many parts.

My program, of which I have 4 versions I put topgether myself. It can now run as an add on with many other off the shelf programs.
I like the fact that you have access to higher end programs and maybe someday you can show me some of your work.

Thanks, Deuem

originally posted by: Deuem


Where people see just a white bouncing light, I see a very neat saucer producing an energy field in the atmosphere.

You mean a combination of atmospheric distortion and lens aberrations on an out of focus piece of video?

Incidentally, what equipment was this originally filmed with? What techniques did you use to measure lens artefacts across the frame. What techniques did you us to counter these inherent limitations in the equipment. How did you overcome the out of focus problem?

The simple truth is, there is no 'information' embedded in this old piece of video, other than the information you create with your constant upsizing and filters.

You should show them your process Deuem.

a reply to: skyblueworld

This doesn't appear to be an authentic image in my opinion. Its shape and pattern suggests a distortion from auto-focus in low light.

Any diffusion of light enhanced from an original would only result in pixel anomaly, which is what I am seeing in the layers of process. One giveaway is that uniform shape of the light combined with a straight on view, unless the light represents an alleged object on the ground. For all we know we could be looking at a street light on full zoom.

Everyone has a phone cam or some cheap video camera with substandard optics which tend to diffuse any light source. If the man processed an image that is inaccurate to begin with, he's just making it worse.

In addition, I don't buy into his assertion that he is using a program unknown to the public, unless he's working for the NSA or some other organization that keeps the best tech and hardware for spying. If this were the case, he wouldn't be talking about it in a public forum.

I would operate under the assumption that the guy who processed it also filmed it. Saying that he got it from a tourist sort of lets him off the hook for supplying technical information regarding the specifications of the equipment used to capture the light image.

a reply to: Gianfar

Spoil sport! You should run with this for a while just for the amusement factor!

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
a reply to: Gianfar

Spoil sport! You should run with this for a while just for the amusement factor!

Maybe I should have waited til it got to page 99.

a reply to: Gianfar

I'm not that patient, but if you are... fine!

However, my point was that the link provided by this ingenious forensic expert should be made public, and, in the name of science, his full set of operations made public too! Including the 'mysterious' software tool!

What I really like here is that in the first 6 minute video it is 12:35 am for a full five minutes. Apparently this super-secret software can perform time dilation as well. Very cool!

originally posted by: ObservingYou
You should show them your process Deuem.

He can't... they're bogus techniques!

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: Deuem





Where people see just a white bouncing light, I see a very neat saucer producing an energy field in the atmosphere.

You mean a combination of atmospheric distortion and lens aberrations on an out of focus piece of video?



Incidentally, what equipment was this originally filmed with? What techniques did you use to measure lens artefacts across the frame. What techniques did you us to counter these inherent limitations in the equipment. How did you overcome the out of focus problem?



The simple truth is, there is no 'information' embedded in this old piece of video, other than the information you create with your constant upsizing and filters.

Thank you for all of your incouraging words Mars. All of the problems you listed don't seem to bother me. I am not looking for the serial number on a UFO, just seeing if it has an energy field. Like I said it is either there or not. I always start at the frame level and work in. I don't have any filters. I have my own program. But I do Push the saturation and contrast around a bit if needed to get a brighter pic from time to time. On the out of focus you mentioned, again unless it is really blured, it will not bother me either. I am not looking for the clean shot, just the energy. Like an un-lit match vs a lit match. It does not matter how bad the content is, I will usualy find or not find something. And yes the better the original the better my output.

It is really quite simple to do. I'm sure you can figure out how to do that. Start with a match and move your way up. Look for the energy signature and start to compare your notes. I have no special program from anyone, it is a program I made up myself. It does seem to be very consistant. But by reading you, my guess is that no matter what I showed you, you would not like it anyways. Even if I did a match.

originally posted by: ObservingYou
You should show them your process Deuem.

Thanks for the thought. This place likes to tear people apart and I'm not interested in that. Besides my work is already on the net if they want to find it, it is easy. If you know me and what I try and do, then you already know I go after the energy signatures. I know I could be as wrong as I could be right. It is an on going study. But it has been fun to do. By the way, I also have processed almost anything I can get my hands on just for fun also. So it does not have to be a UFO.

Maybe I should put it this way, Out of the thousands of frames and pics I have done over the years, this set of A51s video is the closest thing to what I would think/expect a UFO should process as. Nothing in my standards data base comes close to the energy patterns. My best suggestion is for many other people to give it a try and see what they can come up with. Then we sit around, crack open a few beers and compare notes.

originally posted by: Deuem

originally posted by: ObservingYou
You should show them your process Deuem.

Thanks for the thought. This place likes to tear people apart and I'm not interested in that. Besides my work is already on the net if they want to find it, it is easy. If you know me and what I try and do, then you already know I go after the energy signatures. I know I could be as wrong as I could be right. It is an on going study. But it has been fun to do. By the way, I also have processed almost anything I can get my hands on just for fun also. So it does not have to be a UFO.

Maybe I should put it this way, Out of the thousands of frames and pics I have done over the years, this set of A51s video is the closest thing to what I would think/expect a UFO should process as. Nothing in my standards data base comes close to the energy patterns. My best suggestion is for many other people to give it a try and see what they can come up with. Then we sit around, crack open a few beers and compare notes.

Hi Deuem
I have a sky camera and got this vid
At first was thinking it was GOCE satellite falling or a Meteor
So I sent vid to [email protected]
Got this back form him

Thank you! Your movie is certainly not the usual.
May I have a telephone # in case of need to interview you. Thank you. Dirk Ross....Tokyo

In the interview he said he would not put it on his website because he did not think it was a Meteor
Few day’s later got this from him also

The address for sending the large video file is to Jodie Reynolds at
Jodie Reynolds
Please do supply her the correct time, date and your lat/lon so she can determine if it was over your position during that window.
She has given permission to send and she will analyze the video. Thank you!
Dirk Ross...Tokyo

But he would not venture a guess as to what it was
Here is the YouTube vid downgrade

So if your interested in analyzing my original 720x480 at 29.9 frame per/sec
270 Mb avi. file then PM me
I will send you a link to my google drive link hosting original large file

Forgot to mention the cloud ceiling that night was at 6500 feet so this was very low

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
a reply to: Gianfar

I'm not that patient, but if you are... fine!

However, my point was that the link provided by this ingenious forensic expert should be made public, and, in the name of science, his full set of operations made public too! Including the 'mysterious' software tool!

Yes. Love the subject matter. Wish someone would send me a real decent piece of work with specs. Maybe I take it too seriously, but all of the ambiguous mystery obfuscating facts, leads me to my best guess that its smoke and mirrors. After all, the information and circumstances is likely more important than the image. We can look at a light image until our pupils dilate.

originally posted by: Trillium

originally posted by: Deuem

originally posted by: ObservingYou

You should show them your process Deuem.

Thanks for the thought. This place likes to tear people apart and I'm not interested in that. Besides my work is already on the net if they want to find it, it is easy. If you know me and what I try and do, then you already know I go after the energy signatures. I know I could be as wrong as I could be right. It is an on going study. But it has been fun to do. By the way, I also have processed almost anything I can get my hands on just for fun also. So it does not have to be a UFO.



Maybe I should put it this way, Out of the thousands of frames and pics I have done over the years, this set of A51s video is the closest thing to what I would think/expect a UFO should process as. Nothing in my standards data base comes close to the energy patterns. My best suggestion is for many other people to give it a try and see what they can come up with. Then we sit around, crack open a few beers and compare notes.

Hi Deuem

I have a sky camera and got this vid

At first was thinking it was GOCE satellite falling or a Meteor

So I sent vid to [email protected]

Got this back form him

Thank you! Your movie is certainly not the usual.

May I have a telephone # in case of need to interview you. Thank you. Dirk Ross....Tokyo

In the interview he said he would not put it on his website because he did not think it was a Meteor

Few day’s later got this from him also

The address for sending the large video file is to Jodie Reynolds at

Jodie Reynolds

Please do supply her the correct time, date and your lat/lon so she can determine if it was over your position during that window.

She has given permission to send and she will analyze the video. Thank you!

Dirk Ross...Tokyo

But he would not venture a guess as to what it was

Here is the YouTube vid downgrade

So if your interested in analyzing my original 720x480 at 29.9 frame per/sec

270 Mb avi. file then PM me

I will send you a link to my google drive link hosting original large file



Forgot to mention the cloud ceiling that night was at 6500 feet so this was very low

One of my friends is currently getting me the downgraded UT vid and I will look it over.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

a reply to: Gianfar




Yes. Love the subject matter. Wish someone would send me a real decent piece of work with specs. Maybe I take it too seriously, but all of the ambiguous mystery obfuscating facts, leads me to my best guess that its smoke and mirrors. After all, the information and circumstances is likely more important than the image. We can look at a light image until our pupils dilate.

The best thing to do, is to start to figure out what you can't see but is in the photo. There are many ways to do this, some of them very simple, like contrast. If you take for granted that the camera is doing everything you spent good money on it for then it is doing its best to bend the photo into a picture and get rid of jagged lines. Lets call this the gradients in the photo. The gradiants are what I go after. There are many off the shelf programs that can explore this world. Use a rainbow as an example but the rainbow is in the same color family.

This hides info from your eyes, once you find all of the gradients change every other one to an off color or the opposite of it. Spread the colors out so that a rainbow of gradiants appear. So in a photo where you will see a light image turn into what I call waves or rings. Easy to see now. Yea the photo is not the original anymore but the original was used to produce a ring set.

Once you get it down pat you can then take this procedure and use it on all sets of lights and see how they differ.

I don't use any military gear or black op programs, just simply work out a problem and go after it.

I should warn you, that something like 98 to 99% of the work I do process goes in the trash bucket. I never keep the junk or CGI stuff.

After awhile you should be able to look at your work and determine if it is a sticker, model, CGI, swamp gas or maybe, just maybe a new signature you have never come across before. Then it gets interesting and fun.

It takes some work but in the end it should prove interesting. On another site we played the Deuem game where I hid things in one color pictures. Like a solid black, green or white color photo and the members had to find out what was hidden.

originally posted by: A51Watcher

Actually, I'm the one who took this footage and created the video in the OP (Night In The Desert) with zoomed frames next to the original.

To allay speculation on when and where this footage was taken, I released this video showing where I was just before the 'Night In The Desert' footage was taken -

At 7:06 in the above video is a segment of a cammo dude driving past me down mailbox road.

(Daytime photo for perspective.)






During this segment at 7:28 we briefly see one of the craft in the sky in the upper right -






Enlargement of craft in upper right -







A CAD workup on the cammo dude photo based on the craft being 50 ft. wide, determined the distance to be 2000 ft. away from the camera.

a reply to: Deuem

Check you U2U mail for link to original
720x480 avi. 29.9 frame per/sec 270 Mb file